What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 104 by bluegreenearth]

I am fully aware to the fact that there are horrific things done in this world by humans, and I am also aware of the fact that the Church would not be immune to these sort of things occurring in the Church. In other words, we all know there have been folks abused by those in their own Church, and many of those causing this abuse would in fact be leaders, just like there is abuse in other organizations, like the "boy scouts", along with just about any other organization. As I said, I am not under the impression that the Church would be immune to this sort of thing.

However, I am curious as to how you can be so certain as to say,

I will warn that there are behaviors and actions occurring within your church that are directly responsible for causing objective harm to Christians as well as non-Christians outside the church.

Could you please explain to me how you could be so certain, this would be occurring inside, MY Church?

The types of abuses I'm referring to occurs in every church that demonizes its LGBTQ members and their supporters and tries to convince these perfectly normal people that their sexuality and identity is an abomination for which they should feel ashamed. This toxic message from the church is highly abusive on many levels and is directly responsible for emotional and psychological harm to LGBTQ Christians and their families. Whether you accept it or not, this damaging rhetoric is causing emotional and psychological harm to you as well. The deep emotional distress and pain you experience when a LGBTQ friend or family member comes out of the closet for the first time only exist inside you because of an imposed belief in an extraordinary supernatural claim that can be neither proved or disproved. In this way, your declared opposition to the LGBTQ community is all the evidence I need to be certain of abuses occurring in your church.

It is not just abuses to the LGBTQ community that concerns me. The standard Christian practice of telling very young children that they are worthless sinners who deserve to be horribly tortured in hell for eternity unless they genuinely believe in the salvation offered by an invisible God named Jesus has been demonstrated to cause long-term psychological damage according to various experts in the field. Children raised to internalize that abusive message disproportionately experience more issues with anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem than their peers. These issues are often persistent into adulthood and may manifest as "Religious Trauma Syndrome" in patience after they abandon their Christian faith (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13186/g ... b_contents). I am certain of this because it happened to me.

At any rate, I cannot see as to how any of these things would have anything at all to do with whether Christianity may be true, or false? In other words, even though these things do occur inside the Church, what would this have to do with Christianity being false?

It has nothing to do with Christianity being true or false belief, but that is the point. Beliefs inform actions, and actions have objective consequences. When a specific action is known to produce harmful results, there better be a verifiable justification for taking that action. Since we cannot know if Christianity is true or false, what is the verifiable justification for encouraging beliefs that cause objective harm to young children and the LGBT community?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 110 by bluegreenearth]

The types of abuses I'm referring to occurs in every church that demonizes its LGBTQ members and their supporters

I am attempting to understand how a Church would have any LGBTQ members, or supporters? In other words, if one is LGBTQ then why would such a one want to be a member of a Church?

The types of abuses I'm referring to occurs in every church that demonizes its LGBTQ members and their supporters and tries to convince these perfectly normal people that their sexuality and identity is an abomination for which they should feel ashamed.

The first thing I would ask you to do is to look up Rosaria Butterfield. Misses Butterfield was lesbian in a lesbian relationship. She was also a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University, and she was the head of the LGBTQ at the University.

Misses Butterfield, not only abhorred Christians, she claims she was afraid of Christians, and more importantly their ideas. She was in the process of writing a book on, "The Rise of the Christian Right in America". It was in the process of writing this book, and doing her research when she began to read the Bible, and she claims to have come to the conviction that the claims were indeed true, and she credits her education, and her understanding of language.

This was a very painful life shift for Misses Butterfield, in that she lost her job at Syracuse because of it, along with many friends, including her life partner. It is a very intriguing story, and the book I read which she authored was, "The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert", and I could not put this book down.

My point is, Misses Butterfield was a lesbian, and when she became convinced Christianity was true, she rejected her former way of life, in order to join the Church. She was not forced to do such a thing. Now, she continues to be very sensitive to LGBTQs, and she challenges Christians in their ideas and the way many Christians treat these folks, but she is not attempting to persuade Christians that this kind of lifestyle would be normal.

Now allow me to attempt to explain my position here. I am not gay, and I have never had to deal with this struggle in the least. However, there are other struggles in my life I must deal with. Because you see, I am married, and have been married for 36 years now. However, simply because I am married does not mean that I do not have urges, which means because I am a male, and have these urges, and I have to struggle against these urges.

My point is, these urges I have seem normal, and natural, so why would I not simply follow these natural urges? Well, it is because I have become convinced these urges are sinful, and therefore I struggle against these urges.

So then, as you can see, I am no better off than anyone else, and I do not see how I could condemn anyone for the urges they may have, when the urges I have would be just as sinful. The only difference seems to be, that I attempt to struggle against these urges that certainly seem natural to me, and I am convinced they are natural to me, because I am a natural sinner, while there are others who give into these urges, and defend their actions on the basis, the urges are natural to them.

I have no problem with those who give into to their urges because they are natural to them, and do not see the need to struggle against these urges as I do, and I will not attempt to govern their behavior, as long as they do not join the Church. The Church has no business attempting to govern the behavior of those outside the Church, but it does have the responsibility of governing the behavior of those inside the Church, since those who join the Church agree to place themselves under the discipline of the Church.

I will say, I have been vocal and have challenged Christians on their attitude toward the gay community, and we have a number of gay friends and family members, and they are welcome in our home, and we are welcomed into their home. In fact, my wife and I have a very good friend who performed at our wedding who is gay, and he lives about an hour away, and we go and spend the night at his house, and we enjoy our time together with him.

My point is, as long as these folks do not name the name of Christ, I have no problem with their lifestyle, and I am free as a Christian to embrace them as friends, and love them as friends.

This toxic message from the church is highly abusive on many levels and is directly responsible for emotional and psychological harm to LGBTQ Christians and their families.

Again, I am attempting to understand why anyone from the gay community would even want to call themselves Christian? In other words, if one believes they are gay, and wants to follow that lifestyle, then why would they be members of a Church to begin with?

The deep emotional distress and pain you experience when a LGBTQ friend or family member comes out of the closet for the first time only exist inside you because of an imposed belief in an extraordinary supernatural claim that can be neither proved or disproved.

I don't think so, my friend. Because you see, I am fully aware that not everyone will believe the claims in the Bible, and they will make decisions in their life based on the world view they hold, and it does not shock me in any way to understand, and know that others will make different decisions than I would make.

In this way, your declared opposition to the LGBTQ community is all the evidence I need to be certain of abuses occurring in your church.

When in the world did I, "declare opposition to the LGBTQ community"? This is news to me? Next, you really need to stop assuring me what is going on in my Church, because I can assure you, and can demonstrate clearly, and beyond doubt, that you are in error.

The standard Christian practice of telling very young children that they are worthless sinners who deserve to be horribly tortured in hell for eternity unless they genuinely believe in the salvation offered by an invisible God named Jesus has been demonstrated to cause long-term psychological damage according to various experts in the field.

With no disrespect at all, would these "experts" you are referring to be sort of like the "scholars" you have referred to? Because you see, I have no doubt that what you are saying is true, but the problem is the fact that I can clearly see how bias, and prejudice influences opinions, just like I demonstrated with the "scholars". So then, I am hardly going to believe something to be a fact, simply because there are "experts" who say so.

Next, I sit down with children and give them the facts, evidence, and reasons that would support the Resurrection of Jesus, and allow them to grow, and decide for themselves if they are convinced by this evidence or not.

If, when they become older, and decide they are convinced by this evidence, and decide to join the Church, it is not me who is telling them these things, but rather the Biblical writers.

I assure you I do not attempt to scare children into believing, because I want Christians who think, and use their minds, and I am under the impression that Christianity would be better off without those who have been scared to out of using the mind.

Children raised to internalize that abusive message disproportionately experience more issues with anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem than their peers. These issues are often persistent into adulthood and may manifest as "Religious Trauma Syndrome" in patience after they abandon their Christian faith (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13186/g ... b_contents). I am certain of this because it happened to me.

My friend, you are not bringing news to my ears. I have already mentioned what I call "reckless theology" and I am convinced this type of theology has been damaging to many, many people, because I know of many, and have even shared tears with those who have shared their stories with me, as I have attempted to convince them that it is the "reckless theology" you were exposed to, which is in error, not Christianity.

My time here on this site has confirmed this to me, as I would say the overwhelming majority of unbelievers on this site were at one time Christian, and most of these will tell you that they were very convinced, and devoted Christians. However, as I begin to discuss with them, I can clearly see, they are not really rejecting Christianity as being false, but have rather rejected the "reckless theology" they were exposed to, and simply lump the whole thing together. In other words, they "throw the baby out with the bath water".

As an example, there is one particular member of this site who has a horrific story, and I read it in horror. I will not give you all the details, but this man dropped out of college in order to go to the mission field, all based on the passage in the Bible where Jesus commanded the Apostles to, "go into all the world and preach the Gospel".

Again, this man's life was turned into a living hell, all based upon a passage that was never intended for him. I have all the compassion in the world for this man, and his story, and I attempt to speak out against this "reckless theology" when, and where I can, and I believe this is demonstrated when I stood up on the floor of a statewide conference to object to this sort of thing, and this would not be the only example.

I am becoming more, and more convinced that the Church is far more responsible for creating Atheists, than the Atheists themselves, or the university, evolution, and science combined. But again, the problem I am having is the fact that what many of these former Christians are rejecting Christianity for, is not really taught by the Biblical writers, which the example above of the man who went to the mission field based on a passage that was never intended for him, demonstrates.

It has nothing to do with Christianity being true or false belief, but that is the point.

Oh, but it has everything to do with it. However, although I would love to continue on with this thought I will resist so as to get to your other point.

Beliefs inform actions, and actions have objective consequences.

Agreed!

When a specific action is known to produce harmful results, there better be a verifiable justification for taking that action.

Exactly! However, my point is, when these "harmful results" occur, we should not simply assume that this is what Christianity teaches, simply because there are Christians teaching such things, rather we should attempt to determine justification for accusing Christianity of teaching such things. Again, the example above.

Because you see, while most Christians will tell you this command to "go into all the world and preach the gospel" is a command to all Christians, it is not very difficult at all to demonstrate that it would not be.

First, Jesus was addressing the Apostles, and them alone. In fact all the passages which refer to this command specifically make it clear that Jesus was speaking to the disciples, and it goes on to say, "And Jesus came and said to them". Now, who is "THEM"?

Next, if this was indeed a command to all Christians, then why would Paul write letters to the Churches explaining how they should conduct themselves as a Church were they were? Why would he not simply be scolding them for not going out into all the world fulfilling this command?

Finally, there are not very many Christians who champion the idea that this would be a command for all Christians, who are attempting to actually fulfill this command, since they are still in their own hometowns, snug in their own homes, which sort of demonstrates that they do not truly believe this is a command to them.

So yes, "if there are harmful results, there better be a verifiable justification for taking such action", and the Christians who insist this command would be for all Christians need to explain their justification for this idea, along with why they are not attempting to fulfill this command, which has caused so much damage to this man, and his life, but I do not see how this would have a thing to do with Christianity being true, or false?

Since we cannot know if Christianity is true or false, what is the verifiable justification for encouraging beliefs that cause objective harm to young children and the LGBT community?

Allow me to give you a direct quote from Paul dealing with what he calls, sexual immorality,

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people" not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world

So, it seems to me that Paul is saying we as Christians are free to associate with these sort of folks who would not be inside the Church, and to demonstrate that we as Christians should not judge such folks, Paul goes on to say,

For what have I to do with judging outsiders?

So then, if there are Christians who are, "causing objective harm to the LGBTQ community", then they are not getting their instructions from the Bible.

So here, in this one little conversation, we have two examples of Christian behavior which cannot possibly be defended with the Bible. One of which the Bible actually teaches the exact opposite.

The point again is, if there are Christians behaving in such a way, then we need to determine if there may be some justification for such behavior supported in the Bible, before we jump to the conclusion that Christianity would be responsible, and, or must be false.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 110 by bluegreenearth]

The types of abuses I'm referring to occurs in every church that demonizes its LGBTQ members and their supporters

I am attempting to understand how a Church would have any LGBTQ members, or supporters? In other words, if one is LGBTQ then why would such a one want to be a member of a Church?

There are more LGBTQ people and supporters in church than you might realize because they are compelled to remain in the closet while living under their parent's home. There are also LGBTQ people in church who are in denial of their sexual orientation because of the belief about homosexuality that was imposed on them.

The first thing I would ask you to do is to look up Rosaria Butterfield.

Rosaria Butterfield is an example of an outlier from the average distribution of people who identify as LGBTQ. As compelling as her story might be to you, it is in no way representative of what the reality is for the wider LGBTQ community. Since we can't know what is actually inside Ms. Butterfield's genetic code for sexual orientation, we can't determine if lesbianism was actually normal for her or not. Her opinion that the LGBTQ lifestyle is not normal for anyone is not supported.

Now allow me to attempt to explain my position here. I am not gay, and I have never had to deal with this struggle in the least. However, there are other struggles in my life I must deal with. Because you see, I am married, and have been married for 36 years now. However, simply because I am married does not mean that I do not have urges, which means because I am a male, and have these urges, and I have to struggle against these urges.

My point is, these urges I have seem normal, and natural, so why would I not simply follow these natural urges? Well, it is because I have become convinced these urges are sinful, and therefore I struggle against these urges.

Speaking strictly from a secular perspective, the reason it is moral for you to struggle against your natural urges is because of the monogamy agreement between you and your wife. It would be a violation of that agreement for either one of you to have sex with other people. For some married couples, their "contract" allows for them to sleep with other people under very specific conditions. In those arrangements, acting on their sexual urges is not immoral since it is being done with each person's consent. For them, it is only romantic love that defines their marriage and not necessarily physical love. Long-term studies of "open-marriages" have demonstrated that such arrangements contribute to more durable and satisfying relationships for those whom jealousy is not an issue. For those who are unable to overcome their jealousy, it is probably not an advisable practice.

Whether the Bible actually intends to only authorize monogamous marriage is an unresolved debate among theologians. For a few denominations of Christianity, the requirement to resist sexual urges does not necessarily apply when those urges are directed at a second or third partner in a polygamous relationship. You probably don't agree with the theological interpretations supporting that practice, but you can't say it is absolutely false or else it wouldn't be subject to debate.

From another plausible theological perspective, an unfalsifiable case can be made that the Bible doesn't precisely condemn loving monogamous marriages between consenting same-sex adults. I concede that there are scriptures describing marriage between a man and a women, but the context surrounding those scriptures leaves open the possibility that the author may have been addressing a majority heterosexual audience and simply neglected to consider his homosexual followers or even knew if any existed. As such, there doesn't appear to be a justifiable reason for homosexual Christians to presume they must resist or deny their sexual orientation as long as they wait until marriage to satisfy those urges in the same manner as heterosexual couples. Once again, you obviously disagree with this interpretation but cannot claim it is absolutely false.

I have no problem with those who give into to their urges because they are natural to them, and do not see the need to struggle against these urges as I do, and I will not attempt to govern their behavior, as long as they do not join the Church. The Church has no business attempting to govern the behavior of those outside the Church, but it does have the responsibility of governing the behavior of those inside the Church, since those who join the Church agree to place themselves under the discipline of the Church.

Then the church has a moral responsibility to ensure the unverifiable beliefs it imposes on its congregation are not informing actions that are verifiably harmful to them. Hermeneutics and unfalsifiable apologetic arguments are an in insufficient justification for perpetuating a toxic message that contributes demonstrable damage to the well-being of an entire demographic of people.

I will say, I have been vocal and have challenged Christians on their attitude toward the gay community, and we have a number of gay friends and family members, and they are welcome in our home, and we are welcomed into their home. In fact, my wife and I have a very good friend who performed at our wedding who is gay, and he lives about an hour away, and we go and spend the night at his house, and we enjoy our time together with him.

I applaud your civility and flexibility. Credit where credit is due.

My point is, as long as these folks do not name the name of Christ, I have no problem with their lifestyle, and I am free as a Christian to embrace them as friends, and love them as friends.

In that case, my concern is for the LGBTQ Christians you may unknowingly encounter for the reasons previously explained.

Again, I am attempting to understand why anyone from the gay community would even want to call themselves Christian? In other words, if one believes they are gay, and wants to follow that lifestyle, then why would they be members of a Church to begin with?

Because they believe the Holy Spirit has led them to an interpretation of scripture that is appropriate for them. They believe God has a unique plan for every Christian and may be waiting for other members of the church to catch up.

I don't think so, my friend. Because you see, I am fully aware that not everyone will believe the claims in the Bible, and they will make decisions in their life based on the world view they hold, and it does not shock me in any way to understand, and know that others will make different decisions than I would make.

I can admit when I've misinterpreted your perspective or made an incorrect assumption. It appears this may have been one of those times. However, in my opinion, the church seems to have used its influence to psychologically manipulate your perspective which I consider to be a form a abuse even if it doesn't manifest in your mind as being harmful. Granted, that is just my opinion. As such, you could have a similar opinion of Secular Humanism's influence on my perspective.

When in the world did I, "declare opposition to the LGBTQ community"? This is news to me? Next, you really need to stop assuring me what is going on in my Church, because I can assure you, and can demonstrate clearly, and beyond doubt, that you are in error.

Fair point. I should have clarified that the LGBTQ community included LGBTQ Christians. As for my assumption regarding your church, I should have explained that it is based on the statistical probability of there being at least one closeted LGBTQ person in the congregation and the statistical probability that at least one child is being emotionally and psychologically damaged by the way a parent or Sunday School teacher is indoctrinating them. Even just one instance of emotional or psychological abuse is too much. If you are already doing your part to ensure these problems are being resolved, then I will give credit where credit is due.

With no disrespect at all, would these "experts" you are referring to be sort of like the "scholars" you have referred to? Because you see, I have no doubt that what you are saying is true, but the problem is the fact that I can clearly see how bias, and prejudice influences opinions, just like I demonstrated with the "scholars". So then, I am hardly going to believe something to be a fact, simply because there are "experts" who say so.

It happened to me. So, it is a fact in my case.

I assure you I do not attempt to scare children into believing, because I want Christians who think, and use their minds, and I am under the impression that Christianity would be better off without those who have been scared to out of using the mind.

Again, credit where credit is due.

My friend, you are not bringing news to my ears. I have already mentioned what I call "reckless theology" and I am convinced this type of theology has been damaging to many, many people, because I know of many, and have even shared tears with those who have shared their stories with me, as I have attempted to convince them that it is the "reckless theology" you were exposed to, which is in error, not Christianity.

I appreciate and sympathize with your response, but I can't help but point out that you've asserted a "No true Scotsman" fallacy here. Since every version of Christian theology is unfalsifiable, every version of Christianity has an equal chance of being true or false. Therefore, you can't logically claim a "reckless theology" is absolute false.

My time here on this site has confirmed this to me, as I would say the overwhelming majority of unbelievers on this site were at one time Christian, and most of these will tell you that they were very convinced, and devoted Christians. However, as I begin to discuss with them, I can clearly see, they are not really rejecting Christianity as being false, but have rather rejected the "reckless theology" they were exposed to, and simply lump the whole thing together. In other words, they "throw the baby out with the bath water".

What you've described is certainly a component of many apostates' reasons for initially abandoning Christianity. However, although I can't speak for every agnostic atheist, many of us eventually come to the realization that every form of Christianity is unverifiable at best and logically fallacious at worst. At the same time, most of us also acknowledge the value Christianity brings to the human experience even it could potentially be false. This is because, if false, Christianity might serve as a placebo for many people who believe it is true. However, once that bubble is burst, the placebo effect we previously experienced disappears.

Exactly! However, my point is, when these "harmful results" occur, we should not simply assume that this is what Christianity teaches, simply because there are Christians teaching such things, rather we should attempt to determine justification for accusing Christianity of teaching such things. Again, the example above.

No true Scotsman fallacy again.

The point again is, if there are Christians behaving in such a way, then we need to determine if there may be some justification for such behavior supported in the Bible, before we jump to the conclusion that Christianity would be responsible, and, or must be false.

Therein lies the rub. All interpretations of the Bible are made by fallible men, and all Biblical interpretations of supernatural claims are unfalsifiable. So, you are stuck with multiple competing theological claims with no way to objectively determine which one represents the true Christianity and which are biased interpretations. Since every Christian theology has an equal chance of being the one intended by God, my suggestion is to adopt the theology that will maximize well-being and minimize harm for the most people. At least that way, if the chosen theology ultimately turns out to be false, at least an omnibenevolent God would have to reward Christians for having done their absolute best to behave and act in a way that didn't cause unnecessary objective harm to anyone. Given the fact that it is logically impossible for anyone to determine which unfalsifiable theology is intended by God, it would hardly seem appropriate or logical for an omnibenevolent God to punish anyone for failing to apply their faith correctly unless their choice resulted in unnecessary harm in some way.

[1213]

they are forced to rely on arbitrary faith as a justification for their belief. ..

To me faith comes from word faithful, which means loyal. I want to be loyal to God, because I think it is good. In practice it means I want to love as God has commanded. I think it would be good, even if God would not exist. However, for me it would be difficult to say God doesnt exist, because according to the Bible God is love, and I think I know love.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

I am not prepared to take that risk. Would you approve of someone else taking an action that would cause you objective harm based on their unfalsifiable belief in the supernatural claims of the Bible

It depends on what harm and what reason it would be.

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 107 by 1213]

I am sure that it is not always possible as you said, to know exactly what went on in the past. But if we compare for example the records we have of the life of Julius Caesar and the biblical record of the life of Jesus, I think it is much easier to accept the report on Julius Caesar's life.
Julius Caesar has not been recorded as someone who could walk on water, cure lepers, heal the crippled, turn water to wine, feed thousands with only a couple of loaves and a few fish, raise the dead and himself return to life after he was killed.
I don't have a problem in saying that a man called Jesus may indeed have been around a couple of thousands of years ago spending his time wandering the land with his band of followers, preaching and telling parables to the people and that he met a cruel and unjust end by being crucified by the Romans.
All that I can accept as easily as I can accept what has been written about Julius Caesar, but introduce a lot of supernatural stuff into the story and we might as well be discussing Harry Potter!

[Difflugia]

I am attempting to understand how a Church would have any LGBTQ members, or supporters? In other words, if one is LGBTQ then why would such a one want to be a member of a Church?

I attended a UCC church for a while that had a lesbian pastor and I asked her that very question. She told me that it boiled down to her conviction that God was real and Jesus really was her savior and the rest was just details.

I also asked her what kinds of challenges she faced being a lesbian pastor in the community. She said that she had more to deal with and caught more flak for being a woman pastor than for being a gay pastor.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 115 by Difflugia]

Okay, I have 2 questions, and one point to make here. First, would she have been a practicing lesbian? Or, would she be one who had decided to struggle against it?

If she was practicing, I wonder how she would deal with this passage from her pulpit?

For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Maybe she just ignored it? Who knows?

At any rate, the point I would make would be, if there are those who would like to simply ignore parts of the Bible, and pick, and choose, then why would they not all go and find such a Church, or start such a Church which would not teach these things, instead of attending a Church that did not ignore these things?

My whole point is, if you do not believe the things the Church you attend teaches, then why would anyone continue to attend that Church?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 112 by bluegreenearth]

There are more LGBTQ people and supporters in church than you might realize because they are compelled to remain in the closet while living under their parent's home.

Oh? So you are talking about children then, who are brought up in Christian homes, and you are telling us that it would be immoral for us to tell them that Christianity teaches homsexuality, along with many, many other things would be a sin, because they may grow up with these tendencies, and be ashamed, and this could cause them harm? I hope I am correct here?

Well, let's see how things have gone thus far? You begin by asking us to give our "strongest reason for believing Christianity" and I refuse because there would be many good and solid reasons to believe, and this reason, would have to be built, on top of reason.

In other words, if I say, "the resurrection", then I will have to explain why I believe this, and then I will have to say "the reports we have", and then I will have to explain why there would be reasons to believe these reports, and I have successfully done this, so much so that you acknowledge,

I also agree that we cannot rule-out your assessment either. You have, indeed, supplied your reasoning and evidence in support of your conclusion.

The fact of the matter is, you came out heavily armed with the arguments of the "scholars", and I take each, and every one of these arguments head on, and clearly demonstrate that there must, and has to be some sort of agenda on their part, because there is no way anyone can honestly say, "the Gospel of Luke was probably written in the 80s-90s" with all the evidence we have to the contrary, and they never mention this?

The thing is, I have not given you the whole argument, because there would be a whole lot to think about. Because you see, for "Luke" to have been written as late as they would like you to think, this author would have for some reason began to use the words, "we" and "us" as if he is there to witness the events.

Now we could suggest this author was somehow being deceitful, but then we have to do something with the letter of Paul which mentions, "only Luke is with me". And of course these scholars have the answer, which is they protest that Paul could not have been the author of this letter.

Have you ever read the reason they give for this idea? Well I will not address it here, but I can assure you that it is a joke, but all you have to think about is, how did these things all just sort of come together? I mean these guys must have been geniuses? One of them writes 2 letters, in the 80,-90s, and in the second begins to use the words, "we", and "us", and then someone else has the presence of mind to consider this, writes a letter in Paul"s name, and thinks of adding Luke into the conversation?

Do you really believe this stuff? I mean this is just as extraordinary, and absurd as a resurrection seems to be. In other words, the thinking seems to be, "these reports cannot be possible" so they come up with scenarios which end up being just as extraordinary, and absurd, as what they are attempting to explain away.


At any rate, you go on to admit

Since I do not have reasonable access to the resources available to the consensus of scholars, I have no choice but to rely upon their best professional judgement and expertise

Which sort of demonstrates you have no way to "VERIFY" if what they are saying would be anywhere close to the truth? If this is what you would like to do, then that is fine by me, but please pardon me if I do not follow suit, because I would rather analyze the evidence for myself, when, and if I can, and when I cannot, or do not feel confident enough, I still would not simply defer to what others have to say.

At any rate, this all demonstrates that I have given very good and solid reasons to believe Christianity may in fact be true, based upon the facts, and evidence we have available to us, and you have not given one single reason as of yet, to dismiss these claims, other than, "the scholars say so", and you cannot even defend what the "scholars" have to say?

From here, you want to insist that teaching our children these things would be immoral, and you want to talk about someone else being, "arrogant"? I would imagine you do not take to kindly when Christians suggest that what others do would be immoral. However, you do not seem to mind at all, insisting that what Christians do would be immoral.

The fact of the matter is, we have facts, evidence, reason, and logic, in support of the claims of Christianity. Ergo, we have facts, evidence, reason, and logic, in support of the existence of God. You can in no way refute these facts, which means you have no way in which to support your idea that homosexual behavior would be an acceptable behavior.

I do not condemn, nor insist that homosexuals, are immoral because only a god could do such a thing. However, you seem to have taken the place of a god, and are able to detect who the immoral people really are.

So then, if I have every reason to believe the Christian claims would be in fact true, and all you have is the argument of the "scholars" which I have successfully refuted, then would it not be immoral for me to point out the fact that you seem to have no argument, other than what others have to say, that you cannot defend, and refuse to at least inform these folks that I can indeed defend what it is I believe, and this may cause you some harm now, but may save you from, way worse harm later, and allow them to decide where they would like to land on the issue?

The thing is, when I was coming up being exposed to Christianity, I did not struggle with the issue of homsexuality, but there were a whole lot of other sins I did indeed struggle with, and they did cause me serious emotional stress, and guilt. As I have become older I have come to realize that sin is common, and natural to all of us as humans, which should cause some relief, but simply because a behavior is natural for me, does not make it okay.

As an example, when a child is born, you do not have to teach this child how to be selfish, because being selfish comes naturally to them. However, do we allow this child to continue to behave selfishly? Or, do we attempt to teach them that this natural behavior, is wrong behavior?

We could continue. You do not have to teach a child to lie, because it is natural to them. So then, is it immoral to teach our kids that lying is wrong, because it might cause them emotional stress, and guilt?

The bottom line here is the fact that there is a very real probability that the Christian claims are indeed true, because there are real facts, real evidence, and real reasons to believe them, and I, nor any other Christian are responsible for these things. Therefore, even if all of us as Christians would agree with you, and you were able to erase these very real probabilities from your mind, it would still not erase these very real probabilities from reality.

The point I am making is, in reality Christians are not responsible for all of this guilt, and emotional stress. Rather, it is these very real probabilities, that are responsible and I cannot erase these very real probabilities for you.

But the thing is, if you conclude that Christianity is false, and that there would be no such thing as sin, then I will not condemn you, or insist you are immoral. But somehow, I get the feeling that you will not return this favor?

There are also LGBTQ people in church who are in denial of their sexual orientation because of the belief about homosexuality that was imposed on them.

Let's attempt to sort out what you say here. Now, we seem to be referring to adults. If these adults are convinced that Christianity is false, then they are certainly free to leave the Church and pursue any lifestyle they wish.

If however these folks are convinced Christianity is indeed true, then they may have come to the decision to struggle against what seems to be natural to them, because they are convinced that such behavior would go against what they believe to be true.

In fact, I know of such people. Misses Butterflied would be an example, but there are others I know of as well. In other words, these folks will tell you they struggle with these things in their life, but they have decided to take on this struggle, in exchange for what they have become convinced of.

However, this would be no different than many folks who have exchanged their former way of life, in exchange for what they believe to be true. In other words, there are Christians who once thought that pornagraphy was fine and they found great satisfaction in this, but have decided to take on the struggle because of what they have become convinced of. There are Christians who lived a life of drugs, and partying who have taken on the struggle against drugs for what they believe to be true. And of course the list could continue.

The point is, there is no need in an adult staying in Church struggling against these issues, unless they are somehow convinced Christianity is true. Otherwise they are certainly free to leave the Church and pursue any lifestyle they wish, and I know many examples of this as well.

Rosaria Butterfield is an example of an outlier from the average distribution of people who identify as LGBTQ.

Outlier???? My friend, Butterfield was the head of the LGBTQ at Syacrouse, and was an extremely active member in that community. She was hardly an "outlier".

As compelling as her story might be to you, it is in no way representative of what the reality is for the wider LGBTQ community.

First, I never said, "her story was compelling" because I understand her story has no bearing upon what the truth may be. Rather I gave it as an example of one who made a major life shift, (and I mean major) based upon what they have become convinced of as the truth.

Next, what is "the reality of the wider LGBTQ community" which would differ from the experience of Butterflied? She was a lesbian, and had been in this relationship for years. She was the head of the LGBTQ community for the University. She abhorred Christians, and believed Christianity to be abusive, and she attempted to combat against Christianity by writing against it. So then please explain how her reality would be any different? Maybe you need to read some of what she has to say before making such statements?

Since we can't know what is actually inside Ms. Butterfield's genetic code for sexual orientation, we can't determine if lesbianism was actually normal for her or not.

So are you suggesting she wasted her life for years, not simply being in this sort of relationship but also heading up these organizations, and writing in favor of her lifestyle, and being vehemently opposed to Christianity, and this was not the real her?

This is sort of comical, because if a Christian were to insist that folks do not have these sort of tendencies, then I am sure you would object, and insist that we must take their word for it, but now all of a sudden we must, and have to question this one, right? I wonder why?

Her opinion that the LGBTQ lifestyle is not normal for anyone is not supported.

I may have chose a wrong word by using "normal" but I do not know what other word to use here? I, nor Butterfield would argue that folks do not have these sexual tendencies, or desires. Rather, her argument is, instead of giving into these, tendencies, and desires, she has decided to struggle against these things, in order to pursue what she has become convinced of. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Speaking strictly from a secular perspective, the reason it is moral for you to struggle against your natural urges is because of the monogamy agreement between you and your wife.

Okay, so would it be immoral in your opinion, for someone like Butterfield to join the Church because of what they have been convinced of, and struggle against the desires she naturally has?

It would be a violation of that agreement for either one of you to have sex with other people. For some married couples, their "contract" allows for them to sleep with other people under very specific conditions. In those arrangements, acting on their sexual urges is not immoral since it is being done with each person's consent. For them, it is only romantic love that defines their marriage and not necessarily physical love. Long-term studies of "open-marriages" have demonstrated that such arrangements contribute to more durable and satisfying relationships for those whom jealousy is not an issue. For those who are unable to overcome their jealousy, it is probably not an advisable practice.

I will not comment of what you have to say here because it has nothing to do with our conversation. However, I will say that you certainly seem to claim to know what morality would be. In reality, all you are doing is giving us law, and we all know that law, would not equal morality. At least I hope you would not attempt to make that argument.

Whether the Bible actually intends to only authorize monogamous marriage is an unresolved debate among theologians. For a few denominations of Christianity, the requirement to resist sexual urges does not necessarily apply when those urges are directed at a second or third partner in a polygamous relationship. You probably don't agree with the theological interpretations supporting that practice, but you can't say it is absolutely false or else it wouldn't be subject to debate.

This is not in any way "subject to debate" but we do not have the time or the space to get into this, therefore I will simply say that if one does not want to live in a monogamous marriage then they should either find a Church that allows such things, and or, do not attend Church at all.

From another plausible theological perspective, an unfalsifiable case can be made that the Bible doesn't precisely condemn loving monogamous marriages between consenting same-sex adults. I concede that there are scriptures describing marriage between a man and a women, but the context surrounding those scriptures leaves open the possibility that the author may have been addressing a majority heterosexual audience and simply neglected to consider his homosexual followers or even knew if any existed. As such, there doesn't appear to be a justifiable reason for homosexual Christians to presume they must resist or deny their sexual orientation as long as they wait until marriage to satisfy those urges in the same manner as heterosexual couples. Once again, you obviously disagree with this interpretation but cannot claim it is absolutely false.

Well read this passage from the Bible, and you tell me if this author "simply neglected to consider his homosexual followers or even knew if any existed".

For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Notice here how Paul is comparing these actions by referring to them as, "natural", and "unnatural".

Now, I am not insisting that you accept this as true, and you can believe Christianity to be false, but you cannot say, "there doesn't appear to be a justifiable reason for homosexual Christians to presume they must resist or deny their sexual orientation". And this would not be the only passage I could refer to, but it does in fact make the point that this type of behavior, would not be "natural", and would be "shameful" as ar as Christianity is concerned.

So then, not only can I "claim it is absolutely false" as far as Christianity is concerned, I have just demonstrated it.

Then the church has a moral responsibility to ensure the unverifiable beliefs it imposes on its congregation are not informing actions that are verifiably harmful to them.

Again, you certainly seem to be an authority on what would be moral. Listen, the Church holds the Bible up as being true, and it is supposed to be authoritative over the lives of Christians, who have freely decided to place themselves under the protection, and discipline of the Church.

So then, is the Church to simply white out passages like the one above, which may cause someone grief? Or, does the Church have the responsibility to convey exactly what the Bible has to say, and allow those who believe to remain in the Church, while allowing others who may not believe to leave?

If you are talking about children, then this would be the responsibility of the parents. In other words, as a parent, I would not allow my child to attend a Church that may be abusive. As for myself, my children certainly understand how much time, effort, study, and analysis, I have put into these questions, and I have simply shared with them the facts, reason, and evidence in support of what I believe, and I did not force them to believe as I do.

As a result, I have one child who has not darkened the door of a Church in years, and another who immediately left high school, and went off to a Bible school for 2 years in order to simply study the Bible before going off to college, and he is now back home, married, and he, and his wife are active members of their Church.

Of course I have heard of other Churches in which the children are almost forced to accept what is being taught, and I completely understand there are abuses occurring, and I can assure that I am actively speaking out against such abuses.

However, I am not under the impression that those Churches which do not function in the way described above, have the responsibility to gloss over things contained in the Bible, because it may cause someone grief.

My point is, your problem seems to be with those Churches who may use abusive methods, and not the fact that the Church teaches exactly what they claim to believe. If this is the case, then I am all in with you, my friend!

Hermeneutics and unfalsifiable apologetic arguments are an in insufficient justification for perpetuating a toxic message that contributes demonstrable damage to the well-being of an entire demographic of people.

I have already demonstrated that if there are Churches who do such things, they are not getting their instructions from the Bible, because Paul clearly says, "what do I have to do with judging outsiders"? So again, how can Christianity be the blame for such behavior? Again, your problem is not with Christianity, but rather with Christians who do not behave in the way they are instructed.

Allow me to give you another example using a true story. My wife, and I had just left an NFL football game, and we happen to pass this man who was on the side of the road, with kids, who I would imagine were in his youth group at Church, and he, and the kids were holding up signs with messages such a "sinners are going to hell", and other such nonsense.

I was infuriated, and told my wife to pull over, and I threw the car door open and got out and confronted this man face to face, and scolded him for doing such a thing right in front of the kids, so that they could hear. Again, my point is, I am just as much opposed to these abuses as you are, but more importantly, so is the Bible!

In that case, my concern is for the LGBTQ Christians you may unknowingly encounter for the reasons previously explained.

As demonstrated by the passage above, no one who is actively living this sort of lifestyle, should want to be part of a Church which holds the Bible up as an authority, since the Bible clearly calls this sort of behavior, "unnatural". In other words, these folks would not adhere to the idea that this behavior would be "unnatural" so why would they want to be a member of a Church?

Because they believe the Holy Spirit has led them to an interpretation of scripture that is appropriate for them. They believe God has a unique plan for every Christian and may be waiting for other members of the church to catch up.

All they could possibly be waiting on, is for other Christians to get the white out, out, and white out passages like the one above, along with others which clearly say this sort of behavior would be, "unnatural". Again, I am not insisting that all accept the Bible as truth. I am simply saying one cannot insist that the Bible does not teach such things.

in my opinion, the church seems to have used its influence to psychologically manipulate your perspective which I consider to be a form a abuse even if it doesn't manifest in your mind as being harmful.

I don't think so! I can attest, my wife, and all of my friends will attest, that it would be impossible to, "psychologically manipulate" me. I do not play that game!

As such, you could have a similar opinion of Secular Humanism's influence on my perspective.

No, I do not think this at all! Rather, I think you have more than likely been exposed to the "reckless theology" I have spoke about, and you have indeed experience some sort of abuse inside the Church, that should have never occurred.

Fair point. I should have clarified that the LGBTQ community included LGBTQ Christians.

My point is, there can be no LGBTQ Christians, unless they have decided to struggle against these things, and I am here to struggle with them, while they help me with my struggles. Otherwise, they are outside the clear teachings of the Bible, as demonstrated above, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to be a part of a Church which upholds the Bible, which they do not believe?

As for my assumption regarding your church, I should have explained that it is based on the statistical probability of there being at least one closeted LGBTQ person in the congregation and the statistical probability that at least one child is being emotionally and psychologically damaged by the way a parent or Sunday School teacher is indoctrinating them. Even just one instance of emotional or psychological abuse is too much. If you are already doing your part to ensure these problems are being resolved, then I will give credit where credit is due.

Okay, I did not want to, but I may as well get the whole story out there now. There is no way, this could be going on in my Church, because I have not darkened the door of a Church in years, and for at least some of the same reasons (not all) you bring up.

I have tired of Churches who are obsessed with numbers, and will do whatever they can to obtain these numbers which includes appealing to the emotions of people, instead of their mind.

I am also fully aware, and will agree there are abuses going on, which I have witnessed, and spoke up about, which would be another reason for my not attending Church. I think I have demonstrated clearly that I am a person who will stand up, and speak out, but when this does not work the only choice one has is to leave.

However, I cannot imagine what any of this would have to do with Christianity being true, or false? I am convinced that while there is no perfect Church, there are those which operate in the way the should because I know of such Churches, but there are none in my area that I know of.

My point is, I know, and have acted on, and spoke out against some of these issues you bring up, but I am also convinced that Christianity is indeed true, and none of these things would have any bearing upon this in any way.

It happened to me. So, it is a fact in my case.

I am certainly sorry to hear this, and would love to hear more about it.

I appreciate and sympathize with your response, but I can't help but point out that you've asserted a "No true Scotsman" fallacy here. Since every version of Christian theology is unfalsifiable, every version of Christianity has an equal chance of being true or false. Therefore, you can't logically claim a "reckless theology" is absolute false.

Oh, I think I can, and believe I have demonstrated as much. As an example, how could Christians justify judging those outside the Church, when they are clearly told, that is not their business? They cannot! I could go on, and on, demonstrating such things.

What you've described is certainly a component of many apostates' reasons for initially abandoning Christianity. However, although I can't speak for every agnostic atheist, many of us eventually come to the realization that every form of Christianity is unverifiable at best and logically fallacious at worst. At the same time, most of us also acknowledge the value Christianity brings to the human experience even it could potentially be false. This is because, if false, Christianity might serve as a placebo for many people who believe it is true. However, once that bubble is burst, the placebo effect we previously experienced disappears.

I am fine with the conclusions you have come to, and how you have arrived there, as long as you do not insist there would be no reason to believe Christianity would be true.

Therein lies the rub. All interpretations of the Bible are made by fallible men, and all Biblical interpretations of supernatural claims are unfalsifiable. So, you are stuck with multiple competing theological claims with no way to objectively determine which one represents the true Christianity and which are biased interpretations. Since every Christian theology has an equal chance of being the one intended by God, my suggestion is to adopt the theology that will maximize well-being and minimize harm for the most people. At least that way, if the chosen theology ultimately turns out to be false, at least an omnibenevolent God would have to reward Christians for having done their absolute best to behave and act in a way that didn't cause unnecessary objective harm to anyone. Given the fact that it is logically impossible for anyone to determine which unfalsifiable theology is intended by God, it would hardly seem appropriate or logical for an omnibenevolent God to punish anyone for failing to apply their faith correctly unless their choice resulted in unnecessary harm in some way.

This seems really convenient. In other words you will allow anyone to interpret the Bible any way they like, but you would not do such a thing with all written material. In other words, you and I are communicating through writing, and even though I am not a very good communicator in the least, you do not seem to have to much trouble interpreting what I am saying for the most part, but somehow when it comes to the Bible, we just can't tell, right?

[Swami]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

The "eternal perspective" that it offers. This enables you to live life knowing that you are an infinite being, with infinite potential, and all based on an infinite source - God. Compare that to people who only look to the material things - things that can be taken away, die off, or even kill or hurt you in the process. Religious people don't need to drug themselves up with antidepressants if they stay on the right path.

2 Corinthians 4:18, So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal (NIV).

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Experience. What separates a hardline atheist from an open-minded one is experience. I say this because those atheists who experience end up converting to some form of theism.

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

No atheist has been able to show why my reasons are unreasonable. In fact, I posted a debate challenge and no one has accepted. Most if not all atheists know that a religious experience can transform and convert atheists. It doesn't matter the education level, it doesn't matter the socioeconomic level, etc. All that matters is the experience of God, realizing your true self.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 115 by Difflugia]Okay, I have 2 questions, and one point to make here. First, would she have been a practicing lesbian? Or, would she be one who had decided to struggle against it?

She was married to a woman. Her mother-in-law was also a (retired) minister, by the way.

If she was practicing, I wonder how she would deal with this passage from her pulpit?

For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Maybe she just ignored it? Who knows?

I do. She didn't ignore it and it was actually part of the sermon that occasioned our discussion.

The short answer is that she thought Paul was wrong. She thought Paul's overall theology was spot-on (salvation by grace, not works of the Law), but that he also had trouble reconciling this with his own sexual hangups. 1 Corinthians 5-7 is basically Paul trying to figure out how to mesh his own gospel of grace with the idea that various sexual practices must still, somehow, be wrong. He pretty much got it right in chapter 8 when he correctly applied his theology to food (what you eat doesn't matter, but make sure you don't cause confuse weaker Christians), but for some reason, he couldn't bring himself to apply the same theology to sexual practices. She made the (I thought brilliant) point that the Christians in 1 Corinthians 5 were, in fact, causing Paul to stumble. It wasn't their sexual practices that caused the problem, but their arrogance and boasting. To paraphrase 1 Co 8:8-9,

Sexual practices will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not swing, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

Whether you're eating, singing, praying, or doing your stepmom, if it's in faith and submission to Christ, it's holy. Otherwise, it's sin (Romans 4:23).

At any rate, the point I would make would be, if there are those who would like to simply ignore parts of the Bible, and pick, and choose, then why would they not all go and find such a Church, or start such a Church which would not teach these things, instead of attending a Church that did not ignore these things?

My whole point is, if you do not believe the things the Church you attend teaches, then why would anyone continue to attend that Church?

Probably for the same reason that inerrantists have to ignore the presence of biblical contradictions or become atheists. When the Scripture can't possibly all be true and inspired, then something has to give. When I realized that, I gave up Christianity. When she realized that, but for whatever reason couldn't give up on a good and perfect God, she concluded that Paul didn't get things exactly right.